Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Why in the hell Akira was desighned so early?!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Templar: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Timo: [qb]Carriers can't be risked? That's just because some idiots build expensive carriers. If they built destroyers with two Harriers and plenty of SSMs apiece, things would be vastly different... [/qb][/QUOTE] Carriers are expensive for a reason. You can't build destroyers with enough room for two or even one Harrier at reasonable operating cost or even for them to remain destroyer-sized. It'd be stupid to put support personnel, spares, munition, fuel, etc for the aircraft on every destroyer. That's not what destroyers are for. You'd just be wasting resources by spreading assets so thinly in the name of redundancy, and cutting into the space avaliable on a destroyer at the same time. More SSM? Try less. Plus, Harriers weren't build for carrier warfare anyways, they can't protect the CVBG like the Tomcats or have the legs of a A-6 (I hesistate to use F/A-18 as an example of good range). Using them in a purely VTOL capacity (no ramp for STOL) is going to cut into their payload and loiter time. Also, full size carriers are faster, more stable platforms which can conduct air operations in sea states which would make VTOL on and off something like a destroyer impossible. Carriers can also stay on station much long due to their spare, fuel and munition stores, and their superior ability to maintain and repair aircraft. Not to mention operate a whole collection of support aircraft, like AWACs and tankers. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Timo: [qb] Of course, leaving the Harriers ashore, or swapping them for ASW or assault or SAR choppers, would not diminish the destroyer in a major way. [/qb][/QUOTE] Right, because destroyers were designed to work with rotary aircraft which supports the destroyer's role of supporting larger ships. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Timo: [qb] So depending on the availability of the planes, and on the mission, the destroyer could launch fighters prior to entering the fray, or then not. Loss of the carrier-combatant would be no big deal, since there would be plenty of other, empty carrier-combatants available to recover the fighters. [/qb][/QUOTE] If you try your penny-carrier strategy against a full-sized carrier and co, you're going to be partially right. You won't be short on hanger space because you will not have any aircraft left. Even if some were to return, they would have nothing but patches of oil and floating debri and bodies to return to. Redundancy is no match for sheer superiority in every other catagory. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Timo: [qb]And we should be thankful that at least these two ships *have* a balance of equipment, instead of the dull homogeneity of most starships.[/qb][/QUOTE] I beg to differ. I see the homogeneity of ships in Star Trek as one of its trademarks. If I wanted more specialized units, I would look at real life, or pick up a novel, or maaaaybe watch Star Wars. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3